1. Ethical Concepts and Theories
• Definitions
– Society: Association of people organized under a sys-
tem of rules Rules: advance the good of members
over time
– Morality A societys rules of conduct What people
ought / ought not to do in various situations
– Ethics
∗ Rational examination of morality
∗ Evaluation of peoples behavior
1

2. • Moral Systems
– rules for guiding conduct
– principles for evaluating rules
• Characteristics
– public
rules are known to all members
– informal
not like formal laws in a legal system
– rational
based on logic accessible to all
– impartial
does not favor any group or person
2

3. Derivation of Moral Systems
• Morals are derived from society’s system of values
• Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Values
– Intrinsic
∗ valued for its own sake
∗ happiness, health
– Instrumental
∗ serves some other end or good
∗ money
3

4. • Core vs. Non-Core Values
– Core values
∗ basic to thriving and survival of society
∗ life, happiness, autonomy
∗ not necessarily moral
· self-interest vs. impartiality
4

5. • Moral vs. Non-Moral Values
– Moral values are a subset of all values
– Moral values are
∗ public,
∗ informal,
∗ rational and
∗ impartial
• Basic moral values are derived from core
values using impartiality
5

6. Grounding Principles in a Moral System
• Religion
• Law
• Philosophy
6

7. Grounding Moral Principles in a Religious System
• Murder is wrong because it offends God
• punishment is assured, if only in the next life
• hard to apply in a pluralistic society
7

8. Grounding Moral Principles in a Legal System
• Murder is wrong because it violates the law.
• Laws apply to all in a society
• Punishment can be applied in this life
• Laws are not uniform across political boundaries
• Some laws are morally wrong
8

9. Grounding Moral Principles in a Philosophical System of Ethics
• Murder is wrong because it is wrong.
• Based on reason and criteria
• An act is wrong inherently or
because of social consequences
• Punishment has the form of
social disapproval or ostracism
• Criteria found in ethical theories
9

10. Theories
• Need
– Conscience is private
– Golden Rule fails in certain cases
• Concern: voluntary, moral choices
• Characteristics
– Internal Coherence – Parts form a whole.
– Consistency – No contradictions
– Comprehensiveness – Broadly applicable
– Systematic – General
• Workable ethical theory produces explanations that might
be persuasive to a skeptical, yet open-minded audience
10

11. Ethical Theories
• Relativism: Subjective and Cultural
• Divine command theory
• Duty-Based (Kantianism)
• Consequence-Based (Utilitarianism)
• Social contract theory
• Character Based
• Just-Consequentialist
11

12. Relativism
• No universal norms of right and wrong
• One person can say ”X is right,” another can say ”X is
wrong,” and both can be right
12

13. Subjective relativism
• Each person decides right and wrong for herself
• ”What’s right for you may not be right for me”
• Pros:
– Well-meaning and intelligent people disagree on moral
issues
– Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless
• Cons:
– Blurs distinction between what you think is right
and what you want to do
– Makes no moral distinction between the actions of
different people
– not the same as tolerance
– Decisions may not be based on reason
• Not a workable ethical theory
13

14. Cultural Relativism
• What is right and wrong depends upon a society’s actual
moral guidelines
• Guidelines vary in space and time
• An action may be right in one society and wrong in an-
other society or time
14

15. • Pros:
– Different contexts demand different guidelines
– It is arrogant for one society to judge another
– Morality is reflected in actual behavior
• Cons:
– Because two societies do have different moral views
doesnt mean they ought to
– Doesn’t explain how moral guidelines are determined
– Doesn’t explain how guidelines evolve
– Provides no way out for cultures in conflict
– Because many practices are acceptable does not mean
any cultural practice is (many/any fallacy)
– Societies do, in fact, share certain core values
– Only indirectly based on reason
• Not a workable ethical theory
15

16. Divine Command Theory
• Good actions: those aligned with Gods will
• Bad actions: those contrary to Gods will
• Holy books reveal Gods will.
• Use holy books as moral decision-making guides.
• Pros:
– We owe obedience to our Creator.
– God is all-good and all-knowing.
– God is the ultimate authority.
• Cons:
– Different holy books disagree
– Society is multicultural, secular
– Some moral problems not addressed in scripture
– ”The good” = ”God” (equivalence fallacy)
– Based on obedience, not reason
16

17. Duty-Based
• Kant-only good without qualification is a good will, or
the desire to do the right thing.
• Kant-morality is grounded in duty or obligation that peo-
ple have to each other
• Rejects happiness or desirable consequences
• Rational capacity distinguishes human and reveals our
duty to others
• Every person has the same moral worth
• Every person is an end in himself and not a means to an
end
• Criticism-no conflict resolution
17

18. • Rule Deontology
– deon is Greek for duty
– A principle determines the basis for moral obliga-
tions
– Categorical Imperatives
1. Act on a rule that can be universally binding on
all people
2. Act on the rule that ensures that all people will
be treated as ends in themselves (easier to apply)
– Based on universality and impartiality
18

19. – Example 1.
1. Act on a rule that can be universally binding on
all people
∗ Question: Can a person in dire straits make a
promise with the intention of breaking it later?
∗ Proposed rule: I may make promises with the
intention of later breaking them. The person in
trouble wants his promise to be believed so he
can get what he needs.
∗ Universalize rule: Everyone may make and break
promises
∗ Everyone breaking promises would make promises
unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise
believed
∗ The rule is flawed. The answer is No.
19

20. – Example 2.
∗ Carla is a single mother who works full time
∗ She takes two evening courses/semester
∗ History class requires more work than normal
∗ Carla earning an A on all work so far
∗ Carla doesnt have time to write final report
∗ Carla purchases report and submits it as her own
work
20

21. 1. Act on a rule that can be universally binding on
all people
∗ Carla wants credit for plagiarized report
∗ Rule: You may claim credit for work performed
by someone else
∗ If rule universalized, reports would no longer be
credible indicators of students knowledge, and
professors would not give credit for reports
∗ Proposal moral rule is self-defeating
∗ It is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased re-
port
21

22. 2. Act on the rule that ensures that all people will
be treated as ends in themselves
∗ Carla submitted another persons work as her
own
∗ She attempted to deceive professor
∗ She treated professor as a means to an end
· End: passing the course
· Means: professor issues grade
∗ What Carla did was wrong
22

23. – Pros
∗ Rational
∗ Universal moral guidelines
∗ All persons are moral equals
∗ Workable ethical theory
– Cons
∗ Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an
action.
∗ There is no way to resolve a conflict between
rules.
∗ Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.
23

24. – Act Deontology (Ross 1930)
∗ Provides Conflict Resolution
∗ Resolution through ”rational intuitionism”
∗ Rational Intuitionism is controversial with ethi-
cists
24

25. Consequence-Based (Utilitarianism)
– Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
– Goal: produce desirable outcomes
– Consequences are a standard for evaluation
– Morality has nothing to do with intent
∗ An action is good if it benefits someone
∗ An action is bad if it harms someone
– Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness
or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a com-
munity
∗ Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = plea-
sure
∗ Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil =
pain
– Principle of Utility: An action is right (or wrong) to
the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total
happiness of the affected parties.
25

26. • Two flavors: Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism
– Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to in-
dividual actions
– Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to
moral rules
26

27. • Act Utilitarianism
– Focus on individual acts
– An act is permissible if consequences result in the
greatest good for the greatest number
– Add up change in happiness of all affected beings
∗ Sum > 0, action is good
∗ Sum< 0, action is bad
– Pros
∗ Focuses on happiness
∗ Down-to-earth (practical)
∗ Comprehensive
∗ Workable ethical theory
27

28. • Scenario: New Highway Construction
– State may replace a curvy stretch of highway
– New highway segment 1 mile shorter
– 150 houses would have to be removed
– Some wildlife habitat would be destroyed
• Calculate Costs, Benefits
• Decide on Morality based on calculation
• Costs
– $20 million to compensate homeowners
– $10 million to construct new highway
– Lost wildlife habitat worth $1 million
Benefits
– $39 million savings in automobile driving costs
28

29. • Rule Utilitarianism
– Focus on rules
– An act is permissible if the consequences of following
a rule, of which the act is an instance, result in the
greatest good for the greatest number
• Pros
– Compared to act utilitarianism, it is easier to per-
form the utilitarian calculus.
– Not every moral decision requires performing utili-
tarian calculus.
– Moral rules survive exceptional situations
– Avoids the problem of moral luck
– Workable ethical theory
29

30. • Scenario
– August 2003: Blaster worm infected thousands of
Windows computers
– Soon after, Nachi worm appeared
∗ Took control of vulnerable computer
∗ Located and destroyed copies of Blaster
∗ Downloaded software patch to fix security prob-
lem
∗ Used computer as launching pad to try to infect
other vulnerable PCs
30

31. – Proposed rule: If I can write a helpful worm that
removes a harmful worm from infected computers
and shields them from future attacks, I should do so
– Who would benefit
∗ People who do not keep their systems updated
– Who would be harmed
∗ People who use networks
∗ People whose computers are invaded by buggy
anti-worms
∗ System administrators
– Conclusion: Harm outweighs benefits. Releasing
anti-worm is wrong.
31

32. • Cons for Utilitarianism
– All consequences must be measured on a single scale.
∗ All units must be the same in order to do the
sum
∗ In certain circumstances utilitarians must quan-
tify the value of a human life
– Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust dis-
tribution of good consequences.
∗ Utilitarianism does not mean the greatest good
of the greatest number
∗ That requires a principle of justice
∗ What happens when a conflict arises between the
Principle of Utility and a principle of justice?
32

33. • Contract-Based
– Social Contracts and Individual Rights
– Social contracts improve life, give motivation for be-
ing moral
– Morality is limited to a formal contract
– Minimalist and Legalistic ”do no harm”
– Rights-Based
∗ Humans possess ”natural rights” independent of
legal rights
∗ Negative right: A right that another can guar-
antee by leaving you alone
∗ Positive right: A right obligating others to do
something on your behalf
∗ Absolute right: A right guaranteed without ex-
ception
∗ Limited right: A right that may be restricted
based on the circumstances
33

34. • Scenario
– Bill owns chain of DVD rental stores
– Collects information about rentals from customers
– Constructs profiles of customers
– Sells profiles to direct marketing firms
– Some customers happy to receive more mail order
catalogs; others unhappy at increase in junk mail
34

35. • Evaluation
– Consider rights of Bill, customers, and mail order
companies.
– Does customer have right to expect name, address
to be kept confidential?
– If customer rents DVD from bill, who owns informa-
tion about transaction?
– If Bill and customer have equal rights to information,
Bill did nothing wrong to sell information.
– If customers have right to expect name and address
or transaction to be confidential without giving per-
mission, then Bill was wrong to sell information with-
out asking for permission.
35

36. • Pros
– Framed in language of rights
– Explains why people act in self-interest without com-
mon agreement
– Provides clear analysis of certain citizen/government
problems
– Workable ethical theory
• Cons
– No one signed contract
– Some actions have multiple characterizations
– Conflicting rights problem
– May unjustly treat people who cannot uphold con-
tract
36

37. Character-Based
• ”Virtue ethics” of Plato and Aristotle
• Focus on criteria of character development
acquisition of good character traits from habit
• No formal rules
• NOT what should I do? BUT what kind of a person
should I be?
• Criticisms
– no conflict resolution
– no examination of consequences
• Challenges
– no community standards in a pluralistic society
– more emphasis on individual rights
37